On 03/22/2013 03:33 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:


Am 22.03.2013 20:16, schrieb Temlakos:

Still, someone could still crack into such a cluster, and I know some people who will never trust a Cloud, public
/or/ private, with their "stuff." This "stuff" would be of a frankly subversive nature

bullshit

my customers data and privacy is not subversive and if you think
your customers data are not subversive enough to protect them
come and say for what company you are working to give everybody
here the chance to switch to someone who feels repsonsible for
what he is doing with OTHERS PEOPLE data

I never said that you or anyone else held "subversive" content on your machine, nor even that "subversive" content would be an inherently evil thing. I have lately come to the conclusion that a little "subversive" capability is necessary to securing one's freedom. (Which means that I would not lay information with the BKA or Interpol even if I knew the first thing about your business. Which I haven't asked.)

Those people I know, are not members of this list (at least, I don't think they are). They are, however, members of other lists I am on. If anyone tells them that The Cloud is coming to gobble up their data and add it to its own massive data store, with no protection other than a username and password, they'll no doubt find something in the charter documents of the United Nations Division of Sustainable Development ("Agenda Twenty-one") to offer as evidence why they would never dare surrender their data to such an institution.

In sum: I simply wished to point out that certain persons might have reasons, even more compelling than the simple business reason of preventing accidental loss of data, to guard jealously the concept of storing one's own content on one's own machine. Those who might feel that their governments would accuse them of subversion, would have the extra security concern of unauthorized access to data. Or in this case, government seizure of data.

Temlakos